There are 99 comments on the
Pravda
story from Feb 22, 2013, titled The hope of evolutionists.
In it, Pravda reports that:

The recent media splash about finding the hypothetical common ancestor of all mammals is based upon nothing more than the evolutionary argument that DNA and biological similarities between species is evidence for common ancestry.

That hypothesis might work if it were not for the progressive inclusion of chance and error events in the DNA itself (or the proteins it expresses), also being present, and present in the form of a nested hierarchy that only common ancestry explains coherently. These enlightening little error nodes are found in the form of ERV's, variations in pseudogenes, and in the non-functional portions of ubiquitous proteins, and all conform to the same nested hierarchy found in the fossil record.

I'm a big believer in evolution/devolution; I simply reject the unproven fantasy that oak trees and humans have a common ancestor. You must certainly be imagining things to think that the fossil record reveals a nested hierarchy in DNA.

Except all the people who publish the peer-review journals for all the subjects your ideas fall under. And, all the people in the industries that are focused on the subjects your ideas fall under. And, pretty much everybody except you. But, other than those people, serious minds take your ideas seriously.

<quoted text>I'm a big believer in evolution/devolution; I simply reject the unproven fantasy that oak trees and humans have a common ancestor. You must certainly be imagining things to think that the fossil record reveals a nested hierarchy in DNA.

The fossil record DOES reveal a nested hierarchy. DNA DOES reveal a nested hierarchy that mirrors the nested hierarchy found in the fossil record. You're simply conflating the two to create a strawman argument. Pathetic. You'r a small, weak little man.

<quoted text>I'm a big believer in evolution/devolution; I simply reject the unproven fantasy that oak trees and humans have a common ancestor. You must certainly be imagining things to think that the fossil record reveals a nested hierarchy in DNA.

No, the fossil record shows a nested hierarchy directly where such a thing is feasible. We will of course be unlikely to see direct fossil evidence of the connection between an oak tree and a human.

However, the DNA record shows the nested hierarchy more broadly. The subset of that super-set, the part which which is visible in the fossil record, is in agreement.

In other words, common ancestry is supported by a consistent nested hierarchy wherever we look. This hierarchy is revealed not merely by similarity of DNA but by similarity of the error events in DNA, in a cumulative pattern for which common ancestry remains the only viable explanation.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East.

How did he manage that without sourcing?One of the most annoying articles ever, simply for that reason.

<quoted text>I'm a big believer in evolution/devolution; I simply reject the unproven fantasy that oak trees and humans have a common ancestor. You must certainly be imagining things to think that the fossil record reveals a nested hierarchy in DNA.

There is no way to accurately predict the motion of a mere 3-body Newtonian system,

In direct gravitational N-body simulations, the equations of motion of a system of N particles under the influence of their mutual gravitational forces are integrated numerically without any simplifying approximations. The first direct N-body simulations were carried out by Sebastian von Hoerner at the Astronomisches Rechen-Institut in Heidelberg, Germany. Sverre Aarseth at the University of Cambridge (UK) has dedicated his entire scientific life to the development of a series of highly efficient N-body codes for astrophysical applications which use adaptive (hierarchical) time steps, an Ahmad-Cohen neighbour scheme and regularization of close encounters. Regularization is a mathematical trick to remove the singularity in the Newtonian law of gravitation for two particles which approach each other arbitrarily close. Sverre Aarseth's codes are used to study the dynamics of star clusters, planetary systems and galactic nuclei.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulatio...

<quoted text>In direct gravitational N-body simulations, the equations of motion of a system of N particles under the influence of their mutual gravitational forces are integrated numerically without any simplifying approximations. The first direct N-body simulations were carried out by Sebastian von Hoerner at the Astronomisches Rechen-Institut in Heidelberg, Germany. Sverre Aarseth at the University of Cambridge (UK) has dedicated his entire scientific life to the development of a series of highly efficient N-body codes for astrophysical applications which use adaptive (hierarchical) time steps, an Ahmad-Cohen neighbour scheme and regularization of close encounters. Regularization is a mathematical trick to remove the singularity in the Newtonian law of gravitation for two particles which approach each other arbitrarily close. Sverre Aarseth's codes are used to study the dynamics of star clusters, planetary systems and galactic nuclei.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulatio...

No this means that you award values (hierarchical) and therefore influence directly the free bodies, and in that case we are not talking about a free moving three body problem.

No this means that you award values (hierarchical) and therefore influence directly the free bodies, and in that case we are not talking about a free moving three body problem.

You're obviously speaking gibberish and plainly don't understand the scientific content of the first sentence: "In direct gravitational N-body simulations, the equations of motion of a system of N particles under the influence of their mutual gravitational forces are integrated numerically without any simplifying approximations."

Shoob, the problem is not "solved" still. It is nowhere near being solved. You can do integrations with a computer without solving the equations.

If you noticed the article described using computer simulations to "solve" the problem. Technically that is not a solution. You can get arbitrarily close but no one has solved it yet. And the longer the simulation runs the further off it will be.

If you noticed the article described using computer simulations to "solve" the problem. Technically that is not a solution. You can get arbitrarily close but no one has solved it yet.

Likewise, the exact value of pi is unknown to mortals in terms of infinitely many digits but that's precisely the same as in the n-body problem where mathematicians have no problem accepting reality for what it is.

<quoted text>Likewise, the exact value of pi is unknown to mortals in terms of infinitely many digits but that's precisely the same as in the n-body problem where mathematicians have no problem accepting reality for what it is.

Your responses have merely confirmed my initial statement and the reasons I made it. Computer simulations of complex systems - even the three body system - are progressively less reliable the further forward you predict. Where bifurcation events can occur - and they can in almost any complex system, predictability falls to zero pretty quickly. Your only hope of perfect prediction in that case would be perfect measurement. Heisenburg rules that out anyway.

In a two body system, inaccuracy is expected to increase linearly with "distance from the measurement point" in time and/or space. IN a complex system, inaccuracy can increase suddenly and catastrophically at sudden bifurcation points.

Thus for complex systems with multivariate inputs, the kind of heuristic rules developed by Darwin in formulating how evolution works are the only way science can grapple with the problem.

We can fine tune our understanding with mathematics such as the statistical work of the population geneticists. But forward prediction is always limited (not to be confused with the scientific concept of prediction, which is prediction of expected results and evidence consistent with a theory e.g. the discovery of tiktaalik).

Clearly there is a fundamental difference between this and the kind of clockwork formulation possible in a Newtonian two body system.

You claim that Darwin "hardly had a theory" based on your own bias towards the mathematically elegant. But in science, the mathematically elegant is rare, and is no impediment to our knowledge. For example, it is logical to any one that the following:

Will result in a preponderance of success for those in the population with variation (1) that aids in the competition for scarce resources.

This is not trivial simply because it lacks precision. In a complex system its impossible to say exactly which variations will be successful, how much advantage they will provide, etc. Yet the logic remains sound.

And Darwin was unquestionably a genius in recognising this relationship and providing, beyond the ToE itself, a framework for working with previously intractible complex systems in general.

<quoted text>You're obviously speaking gibberish and plainly don't understand the scientific content of the first sentence: "In direct gravitational N-body simulations, the equations of motion of a system of N particles under the influence of their mutual gravitational forces are integrated numerically without any simplifying approximations."

Dense as an oak plank.You always forget to read on:[...]which use adaptive (hierarchical) time steps, an Ahmad-Cohen neighbour scheme and regularization of close encounters. Regularization is a mathematical trick [...]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.